Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by disclosing the specific data returned (APIT, EPF, ETF, stamp-duty) and the inclusion of official sources and scope limits, which confirm safe querying behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, well-formed sentence that conveys the essential information without any wasted words. It is concise and front-loaded with the primary action.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple, parameterless tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It clarifies the content and provenance of the data, which is sufficient for the agent to invoke it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description need not explain param semantics, but it still adds meaning by enumerating what the tool returns, which enhances the agent's understanding of the output without parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description specifies exactly what the tool returns (APIT, EPF, ETF, stamp-duty assumptions) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like calculate_sri_lanka_payslip and get_sri_lanka_payslip_checklist by focusing on reference data rather than calculations or checklists.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the tool should be used when reference assumptions are needed but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. The sibling names provide some context, but the description itself lacks explicit usage guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.